In child pornography case, seized computer videos and images were authenticated by “detailed evidence as to the chain of custody, specifically how the images were retrieved from the defendant’s computers”, in United States v. Salcido, 506 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (No. 06-10546)
When images and videos are found on computer media by law enforcement, how are they authenticated at trial? One way is by establishing a chain of custody from the seizure of the evidence through to the forensic examination, as illustrated in a child pornography case.
In the case, defendant Salcido was prosecuted for receipt or distribution of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors based on an investigation involving peer-to-peer file sharing of child pornography. A search warrant was obtained for the residence of an IP address connected with child pornography. A forensic examination confirmed that child pornography was found on computers and a CD-ROM and charges were filed. At trial, five videos and six still images were admitted. The defendant disputed that the videos and images were authenticated. After his conviction, he renewed the authentication challenge on appeal.
The Ninth Circuit readily affirmed the admission of the videos and images. As the circuit noted, under FRE 901(a), “the government properly authenticated the videos and images under Rule 901 by presenting detailed evidence as to the chain of custody, specifically how the images were retrieved from the defendant’s computers.” Salcido, 506 F.3d at 733.
While there are a variety of ways to authenticate electronic evidence, the Salcido case demonstrates one common manner in a criminal investigation. For a contrary example, where the government failed to properly authenticate electronic evidence, see Failure To Authenticate Digital Image Printouts and Report Of Filenames.
Comments
Post new comment